Remind me not to go to any of his dinner parties...
PC Gamer review rates Elite very high
- Thread starter Lanatir
- Start date
Funny how the people who predicted the bad reviews now try to undermine the good reviews.
...
...
It must be getting lonely indeed out on that limb they're on.
86% seems a fair score to me. The reviewer has clearly played since early development and makes some good points about the investment of time required against the potential rewards. I quote from the general review information:
"80%-89% A great game with exceptional moments or features and touches of brilliance. e.g. Arma 3, Gone Home, Titanfall"
I have not played these other games, but with the ongoing development in ED I have high hopes of an even better score further down the road. 8/10 is where most reviews seem to put the game and I think I agree..a good effort but still not reaching the full potential.
"80%-89% A great game with exceptional moments or features and touches of brilliance. e.g. Arma 3, Gone Home, Titanfall"
I have not played these other games, but with the ongoing development in ED I have high hopes of an even better score further down the road. 8/10 is where most reviews seem to put the game and I think I agree..a good effort but still not reaching the full potential.
This just goes to show that all the worrying and hand wringing done by those here who were afraid the game was going to get bad reviews was for nothing.
This game is still in it's infancy. This game is going to make money. This game is going to keep improving.
This game is going to be another 'classic' for FD
All good news for us!
Oh come on, they weren't worrying, they WANTED the game to be shredded by the press
They probably didn't sleep all night thinking at he positive reviews
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
There so many 'haters' around for every game.... it's sad
But it's nice NOT to be like them
Oh come on, they weren't worrying, they WANTED the game to be shredded by the press
They probably didn't sleep all night thinking at he positive reviews
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
There so many 'haters' around for every game.... it's sad
But it's nice NOT to be like them
In before the guy with his "Don't accept mediocrity!" youtube link shows up.
The fact is, you can easily miss the game's faults at the beginning. Most of the reviewers likely spent the majority of their time learning to fly and dock, I'd like to see a review from someone who has actually progressed in the game, not just toyed with a sidewinder for four hours.
And there's not even any mention of playing with the DK2... Add another 10 points for that alone!
I was gonna cave in and get the DK2 ( I resisted just because I know that as soon as I buy it they'll release CV1....) but couple of guys were discussing it the other day and saying how blurry text was. In your experience, is text readable with the DK2?
In many cases those people were using those predictions as a cudgel to intimidate the devs into doing what they wanted. If you don't do 'x' by release you'll get terrible reviews and lose a lot of sales, if you do 'y' you'll get slammed by the gaming press and noone will buy your game.
Those who weren't outright using it as an emotional lever were in many cases so focused in on what isn't in the game they'd long since forgotten how much impressive stuff *is* in the game.
I expected good reviews with caveats, which is what we got. The gaming press had been impressed by the game throughout beta, and impressed with its rate of progress. They were going to feel obliged to talk about how it is incomplete in this way, lacking in that, but they were never going to be overwhelmingly negative.
Last edited:
So you didn't actually read review then?
Guy states he's put in 50hrs since beta...
PC Gamer sucks. Can't believe people actually take 'professional' reviews seriously. Only score that matters is userscore on Metacritic.
+1. Too true these days.
This review looks accurate to me.
I hope once players will put some more time to rethink and redefine some terms they have about games and about how they are created.
What ED has on the plate is a really widespreading concept. So wide that it is just well over the general boundaries of a game or what a game can achieve. And that can be misleading when it comes to expectiations.
A 'game' as a concept is always based on someting particular: a definitive part of the world or imagination which can be narrowed down into the well constructed boundaries of a box. Within that box there's the very simplified version of that particular reality we call 'game' with all the symbolic acts the players are offered to to according to the rules. Achievements and goals can only be met there too.
I know that as our hardware capabilities are now much more sophisticated it's an easy and automatic jump to the human mind to adjust one's expectations to grow exponentially in listing what features there should be in that box until the boundaries are broken and nobody knows any more what's valid and what not.
This is a very basic emotional reaction (a kind of 'ego-rush') towards the subject and it doesn't help to make the game better for the user who let this expectation booster affected him/her at all.
The game code is the same for all of us - as the experience is different I allow myself to say: it's not about the game we are talking about but how we experience it. And that's based on how we think about it, the "shoulds and shouldn'ts" we raise towards it and so on. So as a review can not be good or bad but something closer or further from what one gets as an experience.
ED in its aims is well out of the general boundaries of a 'game'. It's valid to expect wideness and deepness from a 'game' which has its boundaries defined and the rules regulated. ED is not like that and in the last couple of years I saw this title rising up and reaching an unbelievable level of immersion already with carefully picked contents to back it up.
It's easy for our minds to get sparkled by what we have already and say why don't we have this and that and most importantly 'right now' otherwise we stick some labels on ED quickly like 'unfinished', 'shallow', 'boring', etc.
That's where one may need to revisit the terms and redefine what it does mean to be finished or entertaining or deep. One thing may help in this: to understand that programming and successfully implementing something into a code framework like ED is a slow process - much slower than the arising creativity of the mind can speed on with new ideas poured over in every hour.
Building up all expected and announced aspects of a big universe in a good working order is an endless and epic work. ED is an integrative title so it multiplies the challenge (unlike a truck sim for example which is just about driving or an FPS shooter which is just about shooting, etc.). You can get a finished product in some particular titles because they never intended to break their boundaries to be integrative or if they are, they got only a very limited map to work on together (like tanks and airplanes lately in other games).
What FD did so far is to build a solid fundament on which a great number of other aspects can be built later. That's ED 1.0 after launch and I see it as a great achievement in desing and programming. And that's what we players can rely on when we look at ED now and in the possible future.
Or we can list the complaints without showing some essential understanding about the concept here. I know patience (as time as well) is a rare commodity but being impatient or jumping into quick judgements without deeper understanding will not help for anyone's game experience.
I hope once players will put some more time to rethink and redefine some terms they have about games and about how they are created.
What ED has on the plate is a really widespreading concept. So wide that it is just well over the general boundaries of a game or what a game can achieve. And that can be misleading when it comes to expectiations.
A 'game' as a concept is always based on someting particular: a definitive part of the world or imagination which can be narrowed down into the well constructed boundaries of a box. Within that box there's the very simplified version of that particular reality we call 'game' with all the symbolic acts the players are offered to to according to the rules. Achievements and goals can only be met there too.
I know that as our hardware capabilities are now much more sophisticated it's an easy and automatic jump to the human mind to adjust one's expectations to grow exponentially in listing what features there should be in that box until the boundaries are broken and nobody knows any more what's valid and what not.
This is a very basic emotional reaction (a kind of 'ego-rush') towards the subject and it doesn't help to make the game better for the user who let this expectation booster affected him/her at all.
The game code is the same for all of us - as the experience is different I allow myself to say: it's not about the game we are talking about but how we experience it. And that's based on how we think about it, the "shoulds and shouldn'ts" we raise towards it and so on. So as a review can not be good or bad but something closer or further from what one gets as an experience.
ED in its aims is well out of the general boundaries of a 'game'. It's valid to expect wideness and deepness from a 'game' which has its boundaries defined and the rules regulated. ED is not like that and in the last couple of years I saw this title rising up and reaching an unbelievable level of immersion already with carefully picked contents to back it up.
It's easy for our minds to get sparkled by what we have already and say why don't we have this and that and most importantly 'right now' otherwise we stick some labels on ED quickly like 'unfinished', 'shallow', 'boring', etc.
That's where one may need to revisit the terms and redefine what it does mean to be finished or entertaining or deep. One thing may help in this: to understand that programming and successfully implementing something into a code framework like ED is a slow process - much slower than the arising creativity of the mind can speed on with new ideas poured over in every hour.
Building up all expected and announced aspects of a big universe in a good working order is an endless and epic work. ED is an integrative title so it multiplies the challenge (unlike a truck sim for example which is just about driving or an FPS shooter which is just about shooting, etc.). You can get a finished product in some particular titles because they never intended to break their boundaries to be integrative or if they are, they got only a very limited map to work on together (like tanks and airplanes lately in other games).
What FD did so far is to build a solid fundament on which a great number of other aspects can be built later. That's ED 1.0 after launch and I see it as a great achievement in desing and programming. And that's what we players can rely on when we look at ED now and in the possible future.
Or we can list the complaints without showing some essential understanding about the concept here. I know patience (as time as well) is a rare commodity but being impatient or jumping into quick judgements without deeper understanding will not help for anyone's game experience.